[otabdeveloper4]

We don't know yet. But we do know it's certainly not statistical token prediction.

(People can do statistical token prediction too, but that's called "bullshitting", not "thinking". Thinking is a much wider class of activity.)

[LordDragonfang]

Do we know that with certainty? Do we actually?

Because my understanding is that how "thinking" works is actually still a total mystery. How is it we no for certain that the basis for the analog electric-potential-based computing done by neurons is not based on statistical prediction?

Do we have actual evidence of that, or are you just doing "statistical token prediction" yourself?

[cluckindan]

You’re reversing the burden of proof in a similar manner as religious people often do. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and so on.

[LordDragonfang]

I'm not reversing it lol. You're the one making a claim, the burden of evidence is on you.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it is still absence of evidence. Making a claim without any is more religious that not. After all, we know humans can't be descended from monkeys!